How to test if a print was made at 16 bit?

[digitaldog]

Yes, I know what it's for - that's one reason amongst others depending on the printer; but I'm asking WHERE you control whether it is active or not.

Exactly. There may indeed be dithering happening in the print path alone and we can't control that. But we can control dither in Photoshop depending on one setting and what edits we apply on what kinds of data. That IMHO invalidates all this talk since the OP is asking about 16-bit printing and we all know (hate that term, most of us know) that not everyone is printing in Photoshop.

[elliot_n]

Yes, I know what it's for - that's one reason amongst others depending on the printer; but I'm asking WHERE you control whether it is active or not.

It's not a print-specific thing. It's a photoshop thing to prevent banding when converting between colourspaces, and when converting from 16 bit to 8 bit. It's here:

Photoshop > Color Settings > Conversion Options > Use Dither

[elliot_n]

It is checked by default (I believe), and I can't see any reason to uncheck it.

[Mark D Segal]

Ah, yes indeed - and it is specified for 8-bit images in brackets beside the option, and it is checked by default, which I too have never touched. I hardly ever work with 8-bit images so it's irrelevant, and for the odd 8-bit JPEG I may work with, it's best left checked. And it has nothing to do with the original question of this thread.

[elliot_n]

And it has nothing to do with the original question of this thread.

Not so, according to Doug Gray, who earlier in the thread said:

'Just turning on the dither option eliminates any advantage 16 bit driver paths provide which is mostly theoretical in any case.'

[Mark D Segal]

Not so, according to Doug Gray, who earlier in the thread said:

'Just turning on the dither option eliminates any advantage 16 bit driver paths provide which is mostly theoretical in any case.'

That may well be the case but not related to the O/P's question about how to detect whether 8 or 16 bit data is being used in the printer driver. That's what I was getting at.

[felixpq]

Nope. You're again 'confusing' bit depth with color despite the URL article provided.
Take a 14-bit raw capture of a gray card. Now take a 12-bit capture of a field of colorful flowers. Then consider that until the image is rendered, there's not even a full set of color numbers (and then from that colors) to even evaluate. Not if you agree that this is raw data:

I know your right and everyone else knows your right, it's just semantics. You did as I do very often unfortunately, you took what you wanted to see in my phrase and wrote what you did. But I used "possible colors" in my phrase which is also inaccurate, as you mention nothing in a raw file is truly a color value if you want to be very strict.

All of this still doesn't answer my question that I'll simplify even more here.

Is it possible or not to tell if a print was made (I don't know the proper word(s) to use here, so Ill' try) from a 16 bit image file?

Regards,
YG 

 

[Mark D Segal]

............

Is it possible or not to tell if a print was made (I don't know the proper word(s) to use here, so Ill' try) from a 16 bit image file?

Regards,
YG 

 

I think you've already been advised here - in spades - that the answer is "very unlikely". What else do you want to know?

[digitaldog]

I know your right and everyone else knows your right, it's just semantics. You did as I do very often unfortunately, you took what you wanted to see in my phrase and wrote what you did. But I used "possible colors" in my phrase which is also inaccurate, as you mention nothing in a raw file is truly a color value if you want to be very strict.

All of this still doesn't answer my question that I'll simplify even more here.

Is it possible or not to tell if a print was made (I don't know the proper word(s) to use here, so Ill' try) from a 16 bit image file?

The answer was provided days ago, along with the warning this was a rabbit hole.
No, it's not semantics, some color numbers are not colors, no matter how fine you divide them up. 
Mark just before I also answered the question.
All this stuff about Dither in PS is just more dirt beside the hole.
Lastly, you were told how you can test this, on your end with whatever printer and software you might be using. Once you figure out how (IF so) you converted that data to Adobe RGB (1998) which would alone, invalidate the testing before even pressing the "Print" button.
Are you getting more acceptable answers to the same question over on DP-review?

[elliot_n]

That may well be the case but not related to the O/P's question about how to detect whether 8 or 16 bit data is being used in the printer driver. That's what I was getting at.

It seems closely related to the OP's question. Doug is saying that by having 'Use Dither' checked, the 16 bit pipeline is invalidated. 99.9% of photographers have 'Use Dither' checked, as this is the Adobe default. Therefore, when they say that it is impossible to distinguish a 16 bit print from an 8 bit print, they are making that judgement based on incorrect Photoshop settings.

But I think Doug is wrong about this. I don't think the 'Use Dither' checkbox has any effect on the 16 bit print pipeline.

16 bit prints look the same as 8 bit prints. That's just how it is.

[felixpq]

I think you've already been advised here - in spades - that the answer is "very unlikely". What else do you want to know?

All answers I've seen so far are like yours, "very unlikely" and though it may be right, it still doesn't answer the question since none of you can say for sure they are printing at 16 bit or not.

Like others, I've been going at Canon because I have a Canon but some of you went to Epson for the same reasons and they all came back with the same answer, yes we have a 16 bit driver for that printer (in my case) So I ask again why would a company like Canon and probably like Epson as well would spent money on a useless project like making a 16 bit driver for a printer?

My answer is I really don't see why those company would waste money on something that is "very unlikely" to make any difference whatsoever. It simply doesn't make sense.

Please help me figure that one out?

edit: from https://www.epson.com.mt/viewcon/corporatesite/products/mainunits/faq/1228/21266 almost last line.

"Epson's 16-bit printer drivers are compatible with virtually any application software for an end-to-end 16-bit workflow."

Why in the world would a company like Epson waste it's time and especially it's money to be able to do just that (if "very unlikely to be useful" is beyond me, please explain?


Thanks in advance,
YG

[felixpq]

It seems closely related to the OP's question. Doug is saying that by having 'Use Dither' checked, the 16 bit pipeline is invalidated. 99.9% of photographers have 'Use Dither' checked, as this is the Adobe default. Therefore, when they say that it is impossible to distinguish a 16 bit print from an 8 bit print, they are making that judgement based on incorrect Photoshop settings.

But I think Doug is wrong about this. I don't think the 'Use Dither' checkbox has any effect on the 16 bit print pipeline.

16 bit prints look the same as 8 bit prints. That's just how it is.

I would be grateful if you can explain what OP's mean? I'm useless with these, sorry.

[Mark D Segal]

OP is the Original Post(er)

[felixpq]

OP is the Original Post(er)

Thank you very much.

[Mark D Segal]

It seems closely related to the OP's question. Doug is saying that by having 'Use Dither' checked, the 16 bit pipeline is invalidated. 99.9% of photographers have 'Use Dither' checked, as this is the Adobe default. Therefore, when they say that it is impossible to distinguish a 16 bit print from an 8 bit print, they are making that judgement based on incorrect Photoshop settings.

But I think Doug is wrong about this. I don't think the 'Use Dither' checkbox has any effect on the 16 bit print pipeline.

16 bit prints look the same as 8 bit prints. That's just how it is.

I also think Doug is incorrect. It's pretty clear that whether or not it is checked the option only applies to 8-bit image files. It does not mean this is an option to select an 8 or 16 bit file format. This is my interpretation of what Adobe means in that option dialog.

The OP - my understanding- only asked whether it's possible to see on the print whether the printer is using 16-bit data when that option is selected in the printer driver. I don't see how this relates to the Photoshop option, especially if given my understanding of what that option is for. Anyhow, it doesn't matter. I think we've beaten this topic to death.

[digitaldog]

All answers I've seen so far are like yours, "very unlikely" and though it may be right, it still doesn't answer the question since none of you can say for sure they are printing at 16 bit or not.

If you tell us what answer you'll like and accept, maybe someone (probably over on DPR) will make such a statement.

Like others, I've been going at Canon because I have a Canon but some of you went to Epson for the same reasons and they all came back with the same answer, yes we have a 16 bit driver for that printer (in my case) So I ask again why would a company like Canon and probably like Epson as well would spent money on a useless project like making a 16 bit driver for a printer?

You were provided steps to do your own testing. I suggest you do so, then come up with whatever conclusions you desire.

My answer is I really don't see why those company would waste money on something that is "very unlikely" to make any difference whatsoever. It simply doesn't make sense.

So that's the answer you want someone else to produce?
Doug's answer, concerning marketing IMHO explains to pretty well. And I can site a lot of other similar marketing created features that really are nothing more than marketing.

Please help me figure that one out?

You were.

[elliot_n]

All answers I've seen so far are like yours, "very unlikely" and though it may be right, it still doesn't answer the question since none of you can say for sure they are printing at 16 bit or not.

Doug Gray, with his dark gradient, has demonstrated that there IS a difference - i.e. that there IS a 16 bit print path. But in normal printing scenarios it makes no discernible difference to the final print.

I really don't see why those company would waste money on something that is "very unlikely" to make any difference whatsoever. It simply doesn't make sense.

It might not have cost very much money at all. After all, it's only numbers. And it's good marketing.

[felixpq]

It seems closely related to the OP's question. Doug is saying that by having 'Use Dither' checked, the 16 bit pipeline is invalidated. 99.9% of photographers have 'Use Dither' checked, as this is the Adobe default. Therefore, when they say that it is impossible to distinguish a 16 bit print from an 8 bit print, they are making that judgement based on incorrect Photoshop settings.

But I think Doug is wrong about this. I don't think the 'Use Dither' checkbox has any effect on the 16 bit print pipeline.

16 bit prints look the same as 8 bit prints. That's just how it is.

This exactly why I keep asking the question, most say it's "very unlikely" the print will show some difference and I believe it's "very likely" they are not printing on a full fledged 16 bit pipeline, for whatever the reasons like discuss here.

I don't see companies wasting money it it was as useless as the replies here suggest. It makes no sense whatsoever.

My personal belief is that companies don't waste money for useless thing for so long. There must be a benefit both for them and for the resulting prints.

YG

[elliot_n]

Anyhow, it doesn't matter. I think we've beaten this topic to death.

Indeed, we have

[Mark D Segal]

It's more likely internal marketing by zealous engineers.